rjquillin

I knew Junior Brown slightly, and disliked him, when his father was governor before Reagan. (My father knew Pat at Lowell High School in San Francisco) The irony of the creator of the problem, Junior, having to deal with the mess the public employee unions and their now-wholly-owned subsidiary, the California Democratic Party, made, is delicious.

Never 'knew' any of them, but back then I was working at Paramount Studios, and following some shoots we'd head over to Lucy's for a bite to eat and some pitchers that may have had processed cactus as an ingredient. He and Linda were fixtures there back then.

[edit] For those to young to remember, Ronstadt, then of Stone Ponies fame.

rpm

rjquillin wrote:Never 'knew' any of them, but back then I was working at Paramount Studios, and following some shoots we'd head over to Lucy's for a bite to eat and some pitchers that may have had processed cactus as an ingredient. He and Linda were fixtures there back then.

[edit] For those to young to remember, Ronstadt, then of Stone Ponies fame.

I also remember running into the two of them a couple of times in restaurants in LA in the mid-1970s, including one in Topanga Canyon that was popular at the time, but the name of which escapes me. I was very surprised he remembered our having met when he was in college and I was a kid (my dad was visiting his dad).

bhodilee

rpm wrote:He was ABSOLUTELY right about public employee unions - allowing them was possibly the single worst decision made in state and federal government in the second half of the 20th century.

It's a close run thing between that and Medicare/Medicaid, or that and Reagan's 1986 Amnesty for Illegals, but it's right up there.

Of course he was right, but the propaganda machine (media) really made him seem like the very essence of smug, privileged, Republican evil. A lot of people bought into it (or gleefully watched it happen). Then the dust settled, most peoples services were not affected and people realized how much of a ride they had been taken for. Yay, responsible politicians! Now...we gonna see him run in 2016 if Romney doesn't win this year or will his momentum have died off too much by that point?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

rjquillin

bhodilee wrote:now see, that part I didn't know. Did they cut teacher salary or was it just paying more for benefits? I can't remember.

I believe savings in health care costs, by allowing the market to work and not requiring care to be purchased from providers specified/controlled by the unions, they realized savings; so, benefits, and wasn't this done without the loss of jobs?

bhodilee

rjquillin wrote:I believe savings in health care costs, by allowing the market to work and not requiring care to be purchased from providers specified/controlled by the unions, they realized savings; so, benefits, and wasn't this done without the loss of jobs?

I saw they lost 1400 teachers on the news, but I'm thinking that was more bitter grapes than cuts.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

chemvictim

I might be off base here, but when they were talking about doing the same to federal workers it worked the other way. We would have to pay tax on it coming and going. Not sure though, that hasn't actually materialized yet. Pay cuts happen, sucks if it's you.

rjquillin

I well remember a ~20% event in the 80's, working at the University of CA in San Diego, when California went through a crunch. Hurt, bad, but I survived to get retired in 2010, again due to lack of funds, and get rehired there again last year.

rpm

QFT - I'd say I'm hop(e)ing the Supremes will Change the dynamic of the ever greater encroachment of federal power into our lives, but Bambi (or Obummer, as a friend calls him) has those words all staked out.

joelsisk

abcnews article wrote:The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that President Obama’s health-care law, his top domestic policy achievement, is constitutional because the “individual mandate”–the penalty individuals must pay for not buying health insurance–can be considered a tax.

As Congress crafted the law, there was some dispute over whether or not to consider the mandate a “tax” or a “penalty.” In this September, 2009 exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, President Obama maintained that the mandate is not a tax.

Luckily for Obama, the Supreme Court held that he was wrong. The law stands, only because Congress has the authority to tax–something Obama maintained it wasn’t trying to do.

coynedj

Not at all - it's a legislative issue, and can be repealed or changed by the legislature. That's where the focus of anyone who disagrees with this law (including me, if you recall the discussion at the time) should be.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

abrahamz

John Hayward - So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.

Obama laughed at the idea that this was a tax. I see a lot of Romney ads in the near future with that clip. It should play along with his repeated statements that no one making under $250K annually will see any new taxes since this doesn't affect the uber-wealthy in the slightest. It hurts the poor, middle-class, and small business owners.

rpm

coynedj wrote:Not at all - it's a legislative issue, and can be repealed or changed by the legislature. That's where the focus of anyone who disagrees with this law (including me, if you recall the discussion at the time) should be.

Indeed. The only way to stop ObamaCare is to give the Republicans the Presidency, the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

The real tragedy of this is that Roberts could have killed the entire bill by siding with Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. 5-4 and the whole damned thing would have been toast.

The next few months will be terrible as people figure out just how much the taxes will cost, and how much insurance costs will go up!

Time for Tar and Feathers! Pitchforks! Hanging and Burning in effigy (a small town outside of Ottawatomie).

coynedj

While I didn't like the bill as it was written, I did and still do think that fundamental change needs to come to the health care system in this country. The current mish-mash is leading us down a perilous path, and too many people out there are proposing simplistic "answers" to a very complex issue, that would only replace one mess with another.

While I didn't like the law, I never considered my objections to be Constitutional. Some commentary I've read recently have essentially said that the Supreme Court should have overturned it because it was the wrong approach to take on the issue, and that to me isn't the Court's job - that's what legislatures are for.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

jawlz

Surprised and disappointed. Especially that it was Roberts and not Kennedy that provided the 5th vote to uphold.

Not sure that any real limits now exist on congressional power whatsoever, given that they can apply a tax to inaction - no need to mandate anything when you can just tax anyone who doesn't buy or do what you want them to.

rpm

abrahamz wrote:I have a question for the lawyers out there. If this is a tax, which has to be applicable to all individuals, how is it that certain Unions are being given waivers? Can a tax waiver be granted?

Well, those who don't pay taxes are also exempt. This may well be the subject of future litigation whether, if it is a tax, waivers are constitutional.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark

While Republicans have video'd Dems in public, they haven't actually posted anything personal (supposedly only public events and public spaces).

One of the Democrat trackers even knocked on the door of the family's home. And commented on the video when no one answered: “Well, I guess he’s not home. Where’s Mike? We’ve been trying to find him.”

Probably in Congress stupid.

What gets me is that they are trying to portray the Republicans as out of touch with normal people, yet there are more millionaire Democrats than Republicans in Congress.

And especially aggravating when my local rep (Democrat) has 3 homes.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rpm

kylemittskus wrote:I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

Indeed. The state vs. the individual - does the state obtain its legitimacy from the consent of the governed? (in which case we're in trouble because only 22% think the US government has the consent of the governed today). How large should the role of the state be? Should there be a "safety net?" A "welfare state?" What's the difference? Should we have a tax system where ~50% of households do not pay income tax, but can vote to raise it on those who do? Should laws (e.g. immigration laws) be enforced? Have the intended limits of the Constitution been traduced since the '30s? Is it even possible to rein in the federal government to something like its Constitutionally-imposed limited role?

bhodilee

kylemittskus wrote:I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

Either I don't watch much network TV (probable) or they don't bother with Nebraska (likely), but I haven't seen hardly any of the muckraking I've been reading is so prevalent. What I have seen has been relatively tame.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

MarkDaSpark

'The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.'

Correct. Oh wait, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet on his own? IIRC, DARPA invented the Internet, but it was businesses (not the government) that made it take off.

If not for business usage, the Internet would still be in test mode.

'Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

True, but that someone includes all the business owners who pay taxes, plus the trucking companies who pay taxes and usage fees.

And the reason the government helped build the Interstates was so that they could move troops and tanks quickly.

It is truly amazing how incompetent Obama is regarding business and the economy.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

'The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.'

Correct. Oh wait, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet on his own? IIRC, DARPA invented the Internet, but it was businesses (not the government) that made it take off.

If not for business usage, the Internet would still be in test mode.

'Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

True, but that someone includes all the business owners who pay taxes, plus the trucking companies who pay taxes and usage fees.

And the reason the government helped build the Interstates was so that they could move troops and tanks quickly.

It is truly amazing how incompetent Obama is regarding business and the economy.

1. Yes, the "internet" was originally known as the "DARPA net" and it was turned on in October 1969. I know because I was there, in the computer center at UC Santa Barbara when it was first turned on. A computer science major friend was a sysop and happened to see me walking from the history department to the library past the computer center, came out and grabbed me excitedly, explaining that they were about to turn on this new "network" among UCLA, Stanford, USCB and UUtah. There was a little celebration. I seem to recall it crashed after an hour or two. But it was way cool to be able to say I was there at the birth of the internet. Even before Al Gore....

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.